coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lived in the town of Volnyansk, Zaporizhzhia region. He died on 29 December 2004. On 24 August 2006, the applicant's daughter Mrs Valentina Ivanovna Svistun informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application.
5.  In November 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the agricultural collective enterprise “Ukraina” seeking to withdraw his share (пай) estimated by him as an equivalent of UAH 22,000 (approximately EUR 3,200).
6.  On 25 April 1997 the Volnyansky District Court (hereinafter “the District Court”) found for the applicant.
7.  On 15 July 1997 the Zaporizhzhia Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
8.  On 15 April 1998 the District Court, upon its own initiative, ordered a forensic accounting examination in the case for specifying the value of the applicant's share.
9.  On 7 April 1999 the hearings were resumed.
10.  Between June 1999 and March 2001 all hearings scheduled were adjourned eleven times due to the expert's failure to attend the hearings, two times due to the absence of the court's secretary and eight times due to the absence of the respondent's representative.
11.  On 8 November 2001 the Volnyansky District Court found against the applicant.
12.  On 25 March and 11 October 2002 the Zaporizhzhia Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld this decision.
4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Zagreb.
5.  The applicant was teaching biology and chemistry and was the headmaster of V.N. Elementary School in Zagreb. By its decision of 22 December 1995 the Ministry of Education and Sport (Ministarstvo prosvjete i športa) relieved the applicant of his post of headmaster and dismissed him from work on account that he had reached the retirement age.
6.  On 3 January 1996 the applicant brought an action in the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske) against that decision.
7.  On 9 October 1997 the Administrative Court declined its jurisdiction in the matter, and on 6 May 1998 forwarded the case to the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu).
8.  On 4 September 1998 the Municipal Court invited the applicant to supplement his claim, which the applicant did within the time-limit indicated. The court held hearings on 20 November 2000 and 5 February 2001.
9.  On 17 December 2001 the Municipal Court, considering that it lacked jurisdiction in the matter, made an application to the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) with a view to resolving the negative conflict of jurisdictions.
10.  On 22 January 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that the Administrative Court was competent to hear the applicant's case.
11.  Following the transfer of the case back to the Administrative Court, on 31 October 2002 that court ruled in favour of the applicant. It quashed the impugned decision of 22 December 1995 and remitted the case to the Ministry.
12.  Since the Ministry failed to give a new decision within the statutory time-limit of 30 days, on 5 November 2003 the applicant requested the Administrative Court to do so (see paragraph 16 below). In their reply to his request, the Ministry submitted that it was no longer competent to issue such a decision owing to the change in legislation governing primary education. On 6 May 2004 the Administrative Court, acting as a court of full jurisdiction, issued a decision entirely substituting for that of the Ministry. It dismissed the applicant's request by accepting that the Ministry no longer had competence in the matter. However, it found that in those circumstances the Ministry should have forwarded the case-file to a body authorised under the new legislation to issue such a decision – the school board of the V.N. Elementary School. The Ministry did so on 26 June 2006.
13.  It appears that the case is currently pending before the school board.
14.  Meanwhile, on 8 March 2004 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of the proceedings. On 1 July 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the applicant's complaint. It examined only the length of the proceedings in their part between the introduction of the applicant's request to the Administrative Court on 5 November 2003 and the lodging of the constitutional complaint. The Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional complaint finding that the proceedings had lasted only four months and three days.
4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in the town of Chervonograd, L'viv Region.
5.  On 26 November 1998 the Chervonograd Court ordered the State‑owned mining company “2 Velykomostivska” to pay the applicant UAH 16,960[1] in compensation for damage to his health. This judgment became final and the writ of execution was issued on the same day.
6.  In December 1998 the Chervonograd Department of Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings in the case.
7.  During 2000 the applicant was paid UAH 400[2].
8.  On 1 November 2001 the applicant was paid UAH 600[3].
9.  On 21 February 2003 the applicant was paid UAH 14,950[4]
10. The judgment of 26 November 1998 was enforced in full on 27 February 2003.
5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Istanbul.
6.  At the time of the events, the applicant was a corporal in the Hakkari Mountain Commando Brigade of the Turkish Land Forces.
7.  On 29 January 2002 the brigadier general (tuğgeneral) filed an indictment against the applicant with the Hakkari Military Disciplinary Court which was attached to the Hakkari Mountain and Commando Brigade. He accused the applicant of insulting his subordinates, of deliberately hiding the truth from his superiors and of giving abusive commands to his subordinates which did not concern military service. In particular, the applicant was accused of forcing his subordinates to make his bed, or do his personal shopping and laundry. On 6 February 2002, the Hakkari Military Disciplinary Court, which was composed of a major (binbaşı), a captain (yüzbaşı) and a sergeant major (başçavuş), found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to “room arrest” for 110 days.
8.  On 19 February 2002 the applicant appealed.
9.  On 5 March 2002 the Van Supreme Disciplinary Court attached to the General Command of the Gendarmerie gave a decision of non-jurisdiction regarding the first charge and sent the case file to the Military Court attached to the General Command of the Gendarmerie for reconsideration. It acquitted the applicant of the second charge. However, it established that he had given abusive orders to his subordinates. It therefore upheld the decision of 6 February 2002 in respect of the third charge. As a result, the applicant was ordered to serve 40 days' “room arrest”.
10.  On 16 April 2002 the applicant petitioned the Minister of Defence for a referral of his case to the office of the public prosecutor at the Military Court of Cassation, by means of an appeal against the decision of the Van Supreme Disciplinary Court. He complained, in particular, of a breach of Articles 5 § 1 and 6 §1 of the Convention.
11.  On 7 June 2002 the Chief Magistrate of Military Justice, acting on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, dismissed the applicant's petition.
4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently detained on remand in Kandıra prison.
5.  On 17 July 1996 the applicant was taken into custody on suspicion of having committed robbery.
6.  On 25 July 1996 the Büyükçekmece Magistrates' Court ordered his detention on remand.
7.  On 9 August 1996 the Bakırköy public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Bakırköy Assize Court, charging the applicant with robbery and homicide under Articles 448, 450, 497 of the Criminal Code and Article 13 § 1 of Law No. 6136.
8.  On 21 February 1997 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed another indictment, charging the applicant with attempting to undermine the constitutional order under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.
9.  On 23 October 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court decided to join the two cases against the applicant.
10.  On 27 January 2000 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court submitted his opinion concerning the merits of the case, reiterating his view in the indictment that the applicant should be convicted under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.
11.  On 14 March 2003 the Bakırköy Assize Court also decided to join the two cases.
12.  The applicant requested to be released pending trial several times, both before the Bakırköy Assize Court and the Istanbul State Security Court. The courts dismissed his requests on each occasion, having regard to the state of the evidence, the nature of the offence and the possibility of his fleeing.
13.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.
14.  According to the information in the Court's case file, the criminal proceedings are apparently still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Istanbul.
6.  On 16 October 1981, at a time when Turkey was ruled by martial law following the military “coup” of 12 September 1980, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being a member of an illegal armed organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way).
7.  He was detained for forty-seven days. During his interrogation, which allegedly involved ill-treatment, he confessed to having been involved in various illegal activities of the Dev-Yol. On 2 December 1981 the Ankara Martial Law Court (Sıkıyönetim Mahkemesi) ordered his detention on remand and transferred him to the Mamak Military Prison.
8.  On 26 February 1982 the Military Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Martial Law Court against the applicant and 722 other defendants. The prosecutor accused the applicant, inter alia, of membership of the Dev-Yol, whose aim was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime. The prosecution sought the death penalty under Article 146 § 1 of the – then in force – Criminal Code.
9.  In a judgment of 13 March 1985, the Martial Law Court convicted the applicant of membership of the Dev-Yol. It sentenced him to five years' imprisonment under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. One of the judges dissented, opining that the evidence against the applicant was insufficient.
10.  Both the defendants and the prosecutor appealed to the Military Court of Cassation. While the appeal was pending, the applicant was released from prison on 14 November 1988.
11.  In the meantime, martial law was terminated. Following the promulgation of the Law of 27 December 1993 abolishing the jurisdiction of the martial law courts, the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) acquired jurisdiction over the case.
12.  On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation quashed the applicant's conviction. It re-qualified the offence under Article 146 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code, which entailed a more severe sentence. It transmitted the case to the Ankara Assize Court, which held its first hearing on 6 May 1996.
13.  On 16 July 2002 the Assize Court handed down its verdict on the applicant and numerous other accused.
14.  On 28 May 2004, however, the Court of Cassation quashed the verdict, holding that the court should have taken into account some recent legislative amendments affecting the situation of some of the accused including the applicant. It remitted the case to the assize court, before which the proceedings are still pending.
15.  On 3 October 2006 the Ankara Assize Court convicted the applicant, under Article 146 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code, of attempting to undermine the constitutional order and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant appealed against this judgment and the proceedings are still pending before the Court of Cassation.
4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Kalach, the Voronezh Region.
5.  In 1999 she brought a court action against the Welfare Office of the Kalacheyevskiy District of the Voronezh Region and the Finance department of the administration of the Voronezh Region for delays in payment of child benefits. The court requested the applicant to pay a court fee of 99 Russian roubles (RUR).
6.  By a judgment of 17 January 2000 the Kalacheyevskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region awarded the applicant RUR 2,148.20. No appeal was lodged against the judgment and it acquired legal force ten days later. On an unspecified date the Kalacheyevskiy District Court issued a writ of execution, but on 26 July 2001 the bailiffs' service of the Tsentralnyy District of Voronezh discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the debtor did not have sufficient funds.
7.  On 25 July 2004 the applicant applied to the bailiffs' service for the reopening of the enforcement proceedings. On 20 December 2004 the bailiffs' service returned the writ of execution to the applicant without enforcement as the debtor did not have sufficient funds.
8.  On 24 January 2005 the applicant brought a court action against the bailiffs' service for failure to execute the judgment of 17 January 2000. By a decision of 16 March 2005 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Voronezh dismissed her complaint. On 19 July 2005 the Voronezh Regional Court quashed the decision of 16 March 2005, upon the applicant's appeal, and referred the case back to the first instance court for fresh examination. By a decision of 5 October 2005 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Voronezh again dismissed the applicant's complaint against the bailiffs' service. On 12 December 2006 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the decision of 5 October 2005.
9.  In the meantime, in October 2005, the applicant received RUR 1,402.56 following the judgment of 17 January 2000.
10.  On 12 May 2006 the applicant received the outstanding debt of RUR 745.64 due to her under the judgment of 17 January 2000.
4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Lublin.
5.  On 2 May 1990 the applicant asked the Rzeszów District Court to declare that she had been the beneficiary of an inheritance from a certain M.K. on the basis of a will made before a notary on 24 February 1975.
6.  On 27 September 1990 the other party to the proceedings, a certain W.B., lodged her own inheritance claim and asked the same court to declare that she had received an inheritance from her sister – M.K. – on the basis of the above-mentioned will made before a notary on 21 November 1988.
7.  On 12 November 1990 a hearing was held. The applicant asked for the annulment of a will made on 21 November 1988 in favour W.B.
8.  On 15 March 1991 a psychiatric opinion (opinia sądowo‑psychiatryczna) concerning the testator's state of health between 1975 and 1988 was obtained.
9.  At hearings scheduled between 1 October 1992 and 1 February 1993 evidence was heard from over 20 witnesses.
10.  On 29 October 1994 the court obtained a second psychiatric opinion prepared by an expert from the Lublin Medical Academy (Akademia Medyczna).
11.  On 10 February 1995 the Rzeszów District Court asked the Poznań Medical Academy for an expert report to be prepared by the Institute of Psychiatry –  the so-called “institute opinion” (opinia instytucjonalna).
12.  On 20 April 1995 the Poznań Medical Academy informed the Rzeszów District Court about the state of preparation of the report.
13.  On 10 July 1995 the Poznań Medical Academy informed the Rzeszów District Court that, due to the holiday season, it was not possible to prepare the above-mentioned “institute opinion”. It asked the Rzeszów District Court whether it would accept an expert opinion given by two experts in psychiatry.
14.  On 21 July 1995 the President of the Rzeszów District Court agreed.
15.  The opinion was submitted on 8 May 1996.
16.  The fourth expert's report in the case was submitted on 24 September 1997.
17.  At a hearing held on 23 December 1997 the Rzeszów District Court gave a decision. It was served on the applicant's lawyer on 27 January 1998.
18.  On 24 February 1998 the applicant appealed.
19.  The appeal was dismissed by the Rzeszów Regional Court on 12 May 1998. The decision was served on the applicant on 15 June 1998.
20.  On 14 July 1998 the applicant's lawyer lodged a cassation appeal. It was referred to the Supreme Court on 29 October 1998.
21.  On 13 March 2001 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the cassation appeal as no important legal issue arose in the case.
4.  In 1972 the State Treasury transferred to the applicants a property situated in Krosno. There was no adequate access by road to the property at that time, but the State authorities declared that an access road would soon be constructed. However, the authorities did not undertake any action to ensure proper access to the applicants' property. In particular, a right of way through neighbouring properties was never created.
5.  In 1983 the applicants brought a civil action to have a right of way established by way of a judicial decision. On 31 December 1986 the Krosno District Court allowed their request. Their neighbours appealed.
6.  On 27 October 1987 the Krosno Regional Court quashed the judgment of the first‑instance court and remitted the case for re‑examination, finding that the first-instance court had failed to assess the evidence properly.
7.  By a judgment of 23 October 1990 the Krosno District Court again granted a right of way to the applicants. The neighbours brought a new appeal. On 20 June 1991 the Krosno Regional Court quashed the contested judgment and again remitted the case for re-examination.
8.  On 3 November 1997 the Krosno District Court allowed the applicants' claim. The Krosno Regional Court dismissed the neighbours' appeal on 6 October 1998. The neighbours brought a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court.
9.  The Supreme Court refused to entertain their appeal on 22 June 2001. This decision was served on the applicants on 13 September 2001.
5.  The applicant, Ms Janina Rafińska, is a Polish national, who was born in 1937 and lives in Ostrowite.
6.  The applicant and her husband divorced. On 8 July 1994 L. R. (the applicant's husband) lodged a motion with the Rypin District Court for the division of their marital property. He further asked the court to exempt him from court fees.
7.  On 29 July 1994 the court decided to examine the case together with a case concerning the dissolution of the co-ownership of a farm belonging to the applicant, L. R., K. R. (their son) and K. K. Subsequently, on 8 March 1999 the court decided to examine in separate proceedings the case concerning the division of the marital property.
8.  On 7 April 1999 the first hearing in the case was scheduled for 27 April 1999. On the latter date the hearing was adjourned and the parties were requested to submit their requests regarding the evidence to be taken.
9.  On 30 April 1999 the applicant challenged a judge sitting in the case. The challenge was dismissed on 8 June 1999.
10.  The hearing that was to be held on 14 October 1999 was adjourned and the parties were obliged to submit again their requests as to the evidence to be taken.
11.  On 14 October 1999 the following hearing was scheduled for 27 January 2000. However, on the latter date the hearing was adjourned until 17 February 2000 in order to hear the testimonies of the parties. During the court's hearing of 17 January 2000, the parties were heard. None of them submitted any additional requests for evidence to be taken. The proceedings were completed and the judgment was scheduled to be delivered on 2 March 2000.
12.  However, on 2 March 2000 the trial was resumed and the hearing was adjourned until 21 March 2000 in order to admit additional witness evidence. On 21 March 2000 the parties were heard and the trial was terminated. The court decided to deliver the judgment on 4 April 2000. However, on the latter date the trial was resumed once again in order to admit an opinion of an expert on the composition of the property. On 6 April 2000 the applicant appealed against the decision to admit the expert's opinion. This appeal was dismissed on 10 May 2000.
13.  On 8 August 2000 the expert submitted his opinion to the court.
14.  On 19 December 2000 the court admitted the opinion and the parties' observations on it.
15.  On 5 January 2001 the Rypin District Court delivered its judgment on the division of the property.
16.  On 8 March 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment. The court requested her to pay court fees.
17.  On 6 April 2001 the applicant requested the court to exempt her from court fees. Her motion was allowed on 10 May 2001.
18.  On 10 May 2001 the Włocławek Regional Court dismissed the appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Noginsk, the Russian Federation.
6.  The applicant owns an apartment in Simpheropil (Ukraine), in which she has never resided. In 1994 the applicant rented this apartment to a certain Ms N., who let Ms T., to move into the apartment in her stead. The applicant has unsuccessfully tried to secure Ms T.'s conviction for fraud and wrongful appropriation of her property. In 2002 Ms N. was convicted of several crimes, including fraud against Ms T.
7.  In December 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for eviction of Ms T. These proceedings ended on 28 November 1997, when the court decided to leave the applicant's submissions without consideration. This decision was not appealed against and became final.
8.  On 2 December 1997 Ms T. instituted civil proceedings in the Zaliznychny District Court of Simpheropil (“the District Court”; Залізничний районний суд м. Сімферополя) against the applicant, claiming that the latter had sold her the impugned apartment through Ms N. and seeking to be declared its lawful owner.
9.  On 24 February 1998 the applicant lodged a counter-claim, seeking Ms T.'s eviction and various compensations. Subsequently, the applicant amended her claims twice.
10.  Between February 1998 and October 2001 the District Court scheduled sixteen hearings. Eight of them were adjourned at Ms T.'s requests or on account of her absences. Two other adjournments were attributable to the applicant (an absence and a request). No hearings were scheduled between 12 May 1999 and 12 December 2000 as the District Court had delegated the questioning of the applicant to the Noginsk City Court (the Russian Federation) and was waiting for its response.
11.  On 3 October 2001 the District Court dismissed Ms T.'s claims, ordered her eviction and partly allowed the applicant's compensation claims, having awarded her 3,270.96 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1]. Both parties lodged appeals.
12.  On 18 February 2002 the Court of Appeal of the ARC (the “Court of Appeal”; Апеляційний суд Автономної Республіки Крим) quashed the judgment of 3 October 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
13.  In March 2002 – December 2005 the District Court scheduled seven hearings, none of them being adjourned on account of the applicant's conduct. Between February 2003 and November 2005 no hearings were scheduled.
14.  On 6 December 2005 the District Court ordered Ms T.'s eviction and partly allowed the applicant's compensation claims, having awarded her UAH 13,919.90[2]. On 26 December 2005 Ms T. lodged an appeal.
15.  On 1 February 2006 the Court of Appeal returned the case-file to the District Court for rectification of errors.
16.  On 22 March 2006 the District Court rectified the errors and sent the case-file to the Court of Appeal.
17.  On 12 July 2006 the Court of Appeal dismissed Ms T.'s appeal. There is no information on whether any party lodged an appeal in cassation.
18.  The applicant claims that the judgment remains unenforced to the present date, however, she did not provide any documents in evidence that enforcement proceedings are pending.